Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official eBook

its Remains, 2 vols, 1849.) The author’s
account of the fall of Nineveh, based on that of Diodorus
Siculus, is not in accordance with the conclusions
of the best modern authorities. The destruction
of the city in or about 606 B.C. was really effected
some years after the death of Sardanapalus (Assur-banipal),
in 625 B.C., by Nabopolassar (Nabupal-uzur), the
rebel viceroy of Babylon, in alliance with Necho of
Egypt, Cyaxares of Media, and the King of Armenia.
The Assyrian monarch who perished in the assault was
not Sardanapalus (Assur-banipal), but his son Assur-ebel-ili,
or, according to Professor Sayce, a king called Saracus,
After the destruction of Nineveh, Babylon became the
capital of the Mesopotamian empire, and under Nebuchadrezzar
(Nebuchadnezzar), son of Nabopolassar, who came to
the throne in 604 B.C., attained the height of glory
and renown. It was occupied by Cyrus in 539 B.C.,
and decayed gradually, but was still a place of importance
in the time of Alexander the Great. The eponymous
hero, Ninus, is of course purely mythical. The
results of modern research will be found in the Encycl.
Brit., 11th ed., 1910, in the articles ‘Babylon’
(Sayce), ‘Babylonia and Assyria’ (Sayce
and Jastrow), and ‘Nineveh’ (Johns).
See also, ibid., ‘Cyrus’ (Meyer).

6. Kanauj, now in the Farrukhabad district of
the United Provinces, was sacked by Mahmud of Ghazni
in January, A.D. 1019. The name of Mahmud’s
capital may be spelled Ghaznih, Ghazni, or Ghaznin.
(Raverty, in J.A.S.B., Part I, vol. lxi (1892),
p. 156, note.)

7. ‘Pan’, the well-known Indian condiment
(ante, chapter 29, note 10). ‘Opera
girls’ is a rather whimsical rendering of the
more usual phrase ‘nach (nautch) girls’,
or ‘dancing girls’. The traditional
numbers cited must not be accepted as historical facts.
See V. A. Smith, ‘The History of the City of
Kanauj’ (J.R.A.S., 1908, pp. 767-93).

8. This statement is too general. Benares,
Allahabad (Prayag), and many other important Hindoo
cities, were never deserted, and continued to be populous
through all vicissitudes. It is true that in
most places the principal temples were desecrated or
destroyed, and were frequently converted into mosques.

9. The statement is much exaggerated. The
Hindoo Rajas who paid tribute to the Sultans of Delhi
often maintained considerable courts in populous towns.

10. This proposition, which is not true of Southern
India at all, applies only to secular buildings in
Northern India. The temples of Khajuraho, Mount
Abu, and numberless other places, equal in magnificence
the architecture of the Muhammadans, or, indeed, that
of any people in the world.

11. The anthor’s remarks seem likely to
convey wrong notions. Very few of the capitals
of the Muhammadan viceroys and governors were new
foundations. Nearly all of them were ancient Hindoo
towns adopted as convenient official residences, and
enlarged and beautified by the new rulers, much of
the old beauties being at the same time destroyed.
Fyzabad certainly was a new foundation of the Nawab
Wazirs of Oudh, but it lies so close to the extremely
ancient city of Ajodhya that it should rather be regarded
as a Muhammadan extension of that city. Lucknow
occupies the site of a Hindoo city of great antiquity.